Filing a reference application under section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act is itself a recorded protest within the meaning of the proviso to section 31(2) of the Act, and the protest against the quantum of compensation need not be in writing.

J.V.Gupta, J.

1. This petition is directed against the order of the Collector whereby the application under section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter called the Act), for a reference to the District Judge concerned has been dismissed.

2. The land of the petitioners alongwith that of the other persons was acquired by the State of Punjab on January 15, 1970. The Collector gave the award No. 1, on March 26, 1970, and the amount of compensation was paid to the claimants including Hari Singh, the father of the present petitioners on May 1, 1970. Hari Singh moved the application before the Collector under section 18 of the Act. That application was dismissed by him on January 4, 1973, as it was held that Hari Singh had accepted the amount of compensation without any protest. The said order of the Collector was challenged by way of revision in this Court, which was allowed on July 21, 1977, and the case was sent back for fresh decision. However, the application was again dismissed by the Collector on August 24, 1978. That order was also challenged by way of revision in this Court which was also allowed on December 7, 1978, and the case was sent back for fresh decision in view of the directions given earlier by the High Court. For the third time, the Collector again dismissed the application vide impugned order dated April 14, 1981. According to the learned Collector, Hari Singh accepted the amount of compensation without any protest and, therefore, in view of the provisions of section 31(2) of the Act, the application was liable to be dismissed. Dissatisfied with the same, the petitioners have again come up in revision to this Court.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the amount of compensation was received under protest. No particular form of protest is prescribed under the Act. The very fact that the application was filed on May 1, 1970, for claiming a reference was itself sufficient to show that the amount was accepted with protest. In any case, argued the learned counsel, all other claimants also accepted the amount and no entry was made against their names as to show that they accepted the amount under protest, but at the same time, their applications were forwarded to the District Judge and consequently, compensation was also enhanced in their cases. According to the learned counsel, the finding of the Collector is wrong and against the evidence on the record. In support of the contention, the learned counsel relied upon the Full Bench judgment of this Court in Sher Singh v. Union of India, 1982 Punjab Law Journal 494. It was also contended that even the oral protest was sufficient and it need not be necessarily in writing. In this behalf the learned counsel placed reliance on Rabari Mahadev v. Prant Officer, AIR 1979 Gujarat 192.

4. At the time of the motion hearing, the records of the Collector, prepared at the time of the making of the payment, and the evidence recorded, were sent for. Thus, the whole record is here. From the statement of Mukand Lal, Kanungo, who was produced on behalf of the Collector, it is proved that at the time of the payment of compensation to the claimants, there was a lot of hue and cry and that they refused to accept the compensation as assessed by the Collector. However, later on, they were told that in case they were dissatisfied with the same, they could seek their remedy in accordance with law. However, the witness also stated that no one made any objection, in writing, at the time of the making of the payment of the compensation amount. The duplicate register containing the entries of the payments made on March 26, 1970, was produced and is available in this Court for inspection. The original register containing the receipts is said to have been destroyed. Against the entry, where Hari Singh is stated to have accepted the compensation, some line has been scored out. According to the petitioners, it was written there that the amount was accepted under pro